This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-08-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is worthy to note that bail is not granted to prevent the accused from committing additional crimes.[21] The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the trial court. The amount of bail should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when so required, but it should be no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.[22] Thus, bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused’s interest in his provisional liberty before or during the trial, and the society’s interest in assuring the accused’s presence at trial.[23] | |||||
|
2012-09-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Indeed, pursuant to the "tough on bail pending appeal" policy, the presence of bail-negating conditions mandates the denial or revocation of bail pending appeal such that those circumstances are deemed to be as grave as conviction by the trial court for an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment where bail is prohibited.[5] | |||||
|
2011-12-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In light of the above discussions and conclusions, the Sandiganbayan undoubtedly erred on a question of law in its ruling, but this legal error did not necessarily amount to a grave abuse of discretion in the absence of a clear showing that its action was a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment affecting its exercise of jurisdiction.[62] Without this showing, the Sandiganbayan's erroneous legal conclusion was only an error of judgment, or, at best, an abuse of discretion but not a grave one. For this reason alone, the petition should be dismissed. | |||||